Are you fucking kidding me? What's with this pseudo-shamanistic idea that viewing a picture of an act makes you a participant in it? Has everybody lost their mind?
A criminal offence. Stop making up thought crimes, you authoritarian zealots!
But even aside from that, why on earth should imagery of something be illegal? Producing rape images, sure, rape is already illegal (though sadly not always prosecuted as vigorously as it should be). But possessing an image of an illegal act is not the same as committing that act. Possessing images of a bank robbery, murder or other crime is not in any way akin to committing those crimes, and the Internet is full of videos of crimes being committed (many of which are hosted by large news organizations).
Now, that's a very different situation to either someone recording a crime for evidence which should obviously be legal (and I doubt anyone would want to hang on to the images/footage after providing it to the police anyway) or to actors enacting a fictional fantasy scene, which I feel should be legal with reasonable parental controls in place to stop minors accessing it. The law should be capable of differentiating between these situations, it doesn't have to be all or nothing.
The problem is that you end up censoring material because it offends someone. Never mind that in this case the offense is truly terrible and unquestionably legitimate, the principle is still the same. And if we censor something because one person is offended, how can we really say "no" to the next, gravely offended person who comes along? Where will it end?
Also, your argument about a slippery slope with respect to limits on free speech is in the classical form of a "slippery slope fallacy" because you imply there is no reasonable middle ground without providing compelling evidence. Plenty of countries set limits on speech and function just fine - most or all of the G8 besides the US I believe. (And even the US in this instance.)
As for examples, France is in the news for the ban on certain Muslim attire and Turkey is apparently sliding toward theocracy. The argument I'm making is similar to the argument against letting people have all the guns they want (which of course the US does, to terrifying effect): if you don't give people the tools to commit violent acts easily, they will commit fewer violent acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...
I think the UK is a great example that violent crime will happen despite restricting weapons.
Y'know this is Europe, not USA. We already have decent laws (going back decades) about lots of things that would not pass the free speech thing in the USA (e.g. privacy law, hate speech law). Claiming slippery slope isn't really a persuasive argument.
Porn is fiction and there's no victim. A depiction of a real illegal act is not what you would call porn, it's snuff video perhaps, and distributing it is already or should be prohibited under different laws.
Perhaps the focus on movie recordings is misleading. It's the same issue as photography, and on the still image side it has been and still is discussed to death: should image of victims be banned ? What can be broadcasted and what can not ? Shouldn't a rape victim's identity be always protected ? Or is it OK if he/she agrees with the publication of convicting pieces ? Or what if he/she kills the assaulter afterwards ? Is it OK to have private shots of events other people don't want published ?
There's hundred of questions we could think of in the lapse of a conversation, just making 'films' illegal won't answer them all.
Edit: skipped a word in last sentence
This is an unreasonably strong statement, and very likely untrue. There is no way for end-users of porn to reliably verify that performers in a specific video aren't under duress, aren't being trafficked, etc. Yes, if one knew that a crime was being committed, one could call it a crime, but this is effectively impossible for the vast majority of porn. At best one can hope that no one was harmed.
The parent's argument hinges on being able to clearly distinguish what people call porn from criminally-produced media. Essentially the No True Scotsman Fallacy.
My point is that it's basically impossible to do that, in practice. Sure one could imagine a conscientious porn consumer who only goes to certain trusted producers. Maybe that's what you're getting at with your PG reference?
The ancillary crimes happen when the core product is criminalized; that is, you get drive-bys and chemical plant and pharmacy robberies when drug production is illegal such that the only way to compete in the drug world is to commit other crimes to defend your market and get raw materials.
When the product is legitimized, as happened with alcohol in the US in 1933, the criminal element moves out because it can't withstand the scrutiny a legitimate business is put under as a matter of course. Any legitimate brewing or distilling operation is being looked at from too many angles related to food regulations and taxes and OSHA and so on to be able to risk having undocumented workers make bathtub gin in a basement while killing off their competition.
From this, we can predict that outlawing porn, or making some kinds of porn illegal, will only serve to make the production of that porn a nastier, more illegal business which does more overall harm to society.
In short: Crime breeds crime.
An analogy that comes to mind is the trade in animal parts from endangered species. If we legalize the trade, there is more of an incentive to kill the animals, even if the killing is outlawed.
This can be replaced by simulations using acting and special effects. Porn is about the fantasy anyway.
> An analogy that comes to mind is the trade in animal parts from endangered species. If we legalize the trade, there is more of an incentive to kill the animals, even if the killing is outlawed.
This can also be replaced by simulations, to some extent, but not like porn can be, because it's easier to tell fake ivory from fake porn, for example.
Ultimately, there will always be violence. Some of it will even be recorded for others. But outlawing stuff will just cause more and worse illegal acts to occur.
Although I believe that it's harder to detect fake ivory than it is to detect fake child porn, below a certain age.
And I also believe that legalizing videos of illegal acts encourages the illegal acts, provided the videos are willingly being made by the criminals and they are being used for entertainment as opposed to journalism or analysis. But this is really just a belief, and I do understand that you have the opposite belief.
I remember reading some articles about sex trafficking and porn production, but would have to dig them up to find some actual data.
I somehow doubt porn industry works like IT; I don't think you get to dump your video studio because the formerly free sodas you used for refreshment after the act now cost $.50.
It would be the same case for Nike shoes made by underage children, harvested donor parts masqueraded as ethical donations, fur mantles made with illegally hunted animals, black tuna fished from illegal waters etc. The product is not the problem, the process is to be condemned.
I understand there are some product more prone to abusive behaviors than others, and porn is not the industry with the cleanest image. But assigning the abuses on the products/industry itself is not looking at the root issues (the scumbags doing illegal/immoral things for money. They'd just do other scumbaggy things if porn wasn't worth it).
PS: for clarity, I think less stigma around porn would make it a healthier industry, and I believe there should be more checks to minimize the abuses we see today. It's unfortunate there's so many of them, and I wish porn could become a simple subset of entertainment contents in every way. For now game and anime porn would be the closest to this ideal, with people just doing their jobs in a professional matter with lesser social stigma.
Oh come on. Punching someone in the face is also a crime but I can happily punch a rapist committing the act. The law is not black and white and this sort of thinking only damages discourse.
For a start, even if this was the case, the CPS could not possibly bring forward a prosecution in the public interest. It's absurd on its face. Black and white thinking is usually fallacious and especially so here.
For instance, until recently it was illegal to make an audio recording of another person without his or her express permission. These laws were put in place to prevent criminal "wiretaps" (for purposes of blackmail and the like). Of course every parent who recorded his daughter's dance recital was also committing a felony, but since no one was ever charged for that, nobody complained.
But then the police realized that if they wanted to prevent someone from recording their illegal or embarrassing activities they could arrest the person for illegally wiretapping them. This led to a string of arrests and prosecutions for doing nothing more than documenting police brutality, incompetence or corruption. The point here is that laws have a way of being misused and some laws are easier to misuse than others. Censorship laws are in this category, so special consideration should always be given to the possible unintended consequences when such laws are considered.
Perhaps over-zealous or malicious prosecution doesn't happen in the UK, this seems a bit far-fetched to me, but maybe it's true. It certainly happens in the US.
Of course, if 1 in 6 men were victims of an attempted or completed rape, and if 9 out of 10 victims of rape were men,[0] I'm sure the conversations here would be very different.
[0]: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assau...
So take statistics like that with a huge grain of salt.
I can't speak for the UK, but in the US punching someone that is committing an illegal act, however noble your intentions to interrupt or stop the act, doesn't give you immunity to any civil or criminal charges raised by whomever you assaulted. You might have a pretty good defense for your actions, but you're not immune and you're not on the "right" side of the law.
> A person is justified in engaging in conduct otherwise prohibited if he has legal authority to do so.
In obvious cases, the person may not be charged, or a judge may dismiss the charges at the outset, but some cases of legitimate self-defense will inevitably go to trial for a jury to determine whether the person acted in self-defense or not.
I'm not going to support or detract from those conclusions, there is an argument to have there in both directions.
But at core, that's the reasoning that is being used to push anti porn laws here much stronger than say a year ago.
The opt-out blocking, which is related, is apparently to an extent driven by mumsnet, the Anonymous of the middle aged.
Personally, I see the whole thing as a way of getting the UK's favorite defense contractor's IP filtering/logging equipment into local telephone exchanges. The story is [see el reg] - UK.gov wanted centralized logging/filtering, but that wouldn't get through parliament, so instead they are putting laws in place to make ISPs fit them. The ISPs are getting paid to do this, but need to be made to for the sake of public relations. But making it about porn rather than enacting EU mandated data retention, and putting government specced DPI equipment in every exchange is much more palatable. But I'm reading a lot between the lines here.
Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable.
That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form.
This is true as you say for a wide of variety of topics, but criminalizing those kinds of echo chambers is absolutely useless. Giving a person or agency the ability to criminalize those echo chambers in general creates a method of censorship backed by the law for any group of people.
> Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred. It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape. By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable.
This flies in the face of all statistical evidence we have. Violent crime rates are generally lowering even as violent media, including rape porn, is more accessible.
> That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour. It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form.
I don't disagree. The media we watch and consume affects us as a society, but banning media because of the fact that it does so isn't a solution. Stopping rape won't happen just because you banned legal depictions of it.
In this case it's not the echo chambers that would be criminalised, but the intention is to block the media that may influence people to seek out these echo chambers. I'm not convinced it will work but that is at least the logic used.
> This flies in the face of all statistical evidence we have. Violent crime rates are generally lowering even as violent media, including rape porn, is more accessible.
There are many theories on this but I am aware of no well controlled study into violent pornography. If the research exists I would love to read it.
> I don't disagree. The media we watch and consume affects us as a society, but banning media because of the fact that it does so isn't a solution. Stopping rape won't happen just because you banned legal depictions of it.
I don't claim that it's a complete solution, but to deny it could solve problems at all requires evidence. I can understand the logic behind prohibiting it, and have seen some (relatively weak) evidence to support the idea that pornography can alter a young person's behaviour significantly based on them trying to emulate what they see as desirable.
No, to make something illegal, you should have to prove that it is harmful. There is no proof that rape porn is harmful. You can't just throw out a hypothesis and then say "prove me wrong". That's not how science works, and it's not how law should either.
Do you have some evidence to support your opinion?
I'll assume that by "this" you mean rape fantasies. What if it is normal? Do you think there would still be harm in convincing people of that fact?
> It's extremely easy online to find an echo chamber where virtually every post will agree with you. These exist for mens rights groups, anorexics, conspiracy theorists, practically every topic.
So?
>Rape porn is one of those areas where the lines between reality and fiction are blurred.
Is it? How so? What about romance novels?
>It's highly unlikely someone accessing rape porn is doing it because they are aroused by the idea of simulated rape.
Not so fast. Are you assuming that anyone who would watch/read such a thing is trying to work up their nerve to commit/participate in a rape? Or that once they've seen a depiction that they'll be somehow compelled to go and rape someone?
Here is a quote from an article in Psychology Today: "Many men daydream about getting the girl by rescuing her from a dangerous situation--without the slightest wish to confront armed thugs, or be trapped in a fire on the 23rd floor." Thanks to speeder below for the link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/wom...
>By providing or permitting a similar echo chamber it is much easier for people to convince themselves their actions are perfectly acceptable.
Rapists may indeed seek justifications for their actions, or may wish to merely blame some external factor. Is it your opinion that suppressing such material would prevent the behavior? Can you support that opinion with evidence? How about the fact that rape has existed before pornography? Or that rape occurs in other social primates' groups (I'm assuming that no pornography exists for non-humans.)?
>That is the danger of almost any media that depicts this sort of behaviour.
Is there some proof that viewing or reading such material will cause previously ordinary people to become psychopath/rapists? Or is it merely popular to want to externalize blame for one's actions?
>It's not exclusive to the Internet, but it's the diversity and complete freedom on the Internet which permits these echo chambers to form.
But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?
Certainly, rape is one of the most offensive crimes imaginable.
> So?
So the danger is on the Internet you can easily tailor your social circle to agree with you where such a thing would be impossible IRL.
> Is it? How so? What about romance novels?
Romance novels as far as I am aware do not involve crimes.
> Not so fast. Are you assuming that anyone who would watch/read such a thing is trying to work up their nerve to commit/participate in a rape? Or that once they've seen a depiction that they'll be somehow compelled to go and rape someone?
Neither, simply that their fantasy is one of rape, not pretending to rape. If it's just a fantasy then it's creepy but ok, the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.
> Is it your opinion that suppressing such material would prevent the behavior? Can you support that opinion with evidence? How about the fact that rape has existed before pornography?
No of course I don't believe that suppressing such material would prevent the behaviour. The fact is that many rapists are mentally ill individuals. My hope is that careful management can reduce the exposure these individuals have to reinforcement.
> Is there some proof that viewing or reading such material will cause previously ordinary people to become psychopath/rapists? Or is it merely popular to want to externalize blame for one's actions?
The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings. For example, that feminism is against the 'natural order'. That is quite a common one.
> But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?
Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants. It's a fine line to walk but I take issue with the idea that it's either all or nothing. It isn't, responsible measures can be taken without silencing dissent or isolating the vulnerable.
No disagreement there, but I said "rape fantasy". Do you consider them the same thing?
>So the danger is on the Internet you can easily tailor your social circle to agree with you where such a thing would be impossible IRL.
What's that got to do with anything here in this thread? Are you suggesting that HN is an enclave of rapists and aspiring rapists?
>Romance novels as far as I am aware do not involve crimes.
I'm told they do offer depictions of crimes. What other crimes should the depiction of be illegal and censored on the internet?
>Neither, simply that their fantasy is one of rape, not pretending to rape.
Completely unproven. You may repeat it all you like but you've offered no evidence.
> If it's just a fantasy then it's creepy but ok,
If it is just a fantasy then it is by definition, not rape, not an intention to rape, or a crime.
> the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.
There is no "echo chamber" of rape advocates.
>No of course I don't believe that suppressing such material would prevent the behaviour.
Then what good can come of suppressing the material?
>The fact is that many rapists are mentally ill individuals. My hope is that careful management can reduce the exposure these individuals have to reinforcement.
Why? It is a terribly dangerous precedent to set for something that you just admitted would not prevent rape.
>The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings.
So, even though it would not prevent rape, you want the whole of society to have their internet censored and monitored so that a small fraction of mentally ill people cannot(assuming the censorship is effective) get from the internet what you perceive would be a validation of their supposed deviant beliefs?
> For example, that feminism is against the 'natural order'. That is quite a common one.
You want to also censor debate that disagrees with feminists?
> But you want to start stamping it out on the internet first?
>Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together.
Even if there was a place where women discussed their rape fantasies?
> I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants.
So you do, in fact want to start stamping out discussion of "deviant thought" on the internet. Should psychologists and therapists be required to report people who admit to having rape fantasies during counseling sessions, so the deviants can be monitored by their local police? Should they be marked with a tattoo (for everyone's safety)? Required to wear a tracking device?
> It's a fine line to walk but I take issue with the idea that it's either all or nothing. It isn't, responsible measures can be taken without silencing dissent or isolating the vulnerable.
Can you point to any past successes of censorship? Successful at either, preventing crime, or successful at not censoring unrelated content?
> the danger is when an echo chamber is formed and no dissenting voice exists.
Looking at the last two decades, I am willing to bet the freedom and diversity of the Internet is responsible for crushing far more dangerous "echo chambers." I am not sure how making a system less diverse or less free (as in speech) is a good thing. It is through diverse, open and free speech that echo chambers are canceled out. People searching out an "echo chamber" on the internet is no different than finding a church group or political group that exclusively prescribes to your views. History is filled with the negative effects of those social structures as well. The real "echo chamber" is a society that feels they know what is normal, appropriate and decent for everyone. It wasn't long ago that women were diagnosed with "female hysteria" and a bit longer since it was thought that whites and blacks couldn't interbreed.
"We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still." - John Stuart Mill
>The danger is not to 'previously ordinary people'. The danger is that people with predispositions can be convinced that they are right in their beliefs or feelings.
This goes both ways. Someone predisposed to enjoy sex can be convinced that it is disgusting and wrong and there is something wrong with them. Someone with a predisposition to be open and trusting can be convinced that the whole of humanity is out to rape and murder them.
Did you ever hear anyone say, "That work had better be banned because I might read it and it might be very damaging to me?" - Joseph Henry Jackson
>Not at all, if there existed such a place where people with rape fantasies could go to discuss them together I would support its closure and perhaps even the monitoring of its participants.
You mean a couple's bedroom?
Considering the film Avatar literally has what can only be considered an animal rape scene in it and very few people noticed and actually took children to watch it I don't think 'rape culture' is a particularly egregious term.
I'm no uberfeminist, but I can certainly see how pornography is extremely abusive in most cases. There's a reason there is a genre called 'porn for women' whos primary draw is that there's no gagging or slapping or facials. Sure some women enjoy these actions, but why the heck is it everywhere in porn?
First, have you ever seen two animals have sex? It's almost always what humans would call rape. Second, the "animal rape" scene isn't any more rape than a human riding a horse is (I'm assuming you're referring to the Navi riding the dragon things). It depicted an activity that was normal for those species in their culture.
If you take out the "sexual organ" (I partially disagree with that term as it is also used for the transfer of thoughts) how is this any different than a human riding a horse? In both situations you have a sapient, intelligent being subjugating a "lesser" creature for their own goals.
Movies of that nature would face the same uproar, and indeed have (the idea of 'snuff films')
You watch boring movies.
Some are even torture porn with explicitly detailed and violent rape scenes[2]. These are also planned to be banned if I am not mistaken.[3]
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splatter_film [2] http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/03/15/a-serbian-film-sho... [3.a] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/07/11/torture-porn-atti... [3.b] http://www.theweek.co.uk/film/50537/uk-film-censor-get-tough...
Your argument predicts that murder rates would rise after the arrival of the internet as people who enjoy simulated murder use online echo chambers to validate their belief that murder should be acceptable (it's highly unlikely that they are watching simulated murder for pleasure).
Except murder rates haven't risen since the arrival of the internet.
Why?
So stop giving a shit about where other people put their genitalia, unless it was not consensual.
In this context we're talking about rape, so unless you think that gay sex is rape then it's really not an appropriate analogy.
Real rape isn't really relevant since nobody supports it (to my knowledge).
Think of this scenario - you own a warehouse, and have a security system installed, with cameras on all sides of the building. A couple of nights later, you get a call from the police - a rape was reported outside your building from the night before. Your security footage would be useful evidence, they say - so you hand it over, not bothering to consult a lawyer first. The next week, you accidentally cut off the county prosecutor driving to work, and he files charges for "possession of rape video", based on the footage you handed over to police. The law has no provision for Mens Rea, so you are quickly convicted and are now labelled a felon and sex offender.
And that's just one of the reasons you shouldn't ban the possession of images/videos of an illegal act.
This isn't really hard to do, as you say, you can just include a "mens rea" bit. Laws include "intent" all the time.
Because you cannot show you were harmed to anywhere the same degree that being a rape victim could,
This is Europe. When it comes to "right to free speech" versus other rights, we don't have the dial set as far towards "free speech" as the USA.
He points one out himself, The Accused which I haven't seen. Obvious other examples are The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Game of Thrones and the BBC's own The White Queen. The BBC censored that programme compared to the Starz cut, and we still see a young girl get raped. None of them should be opt in as far as I'm concerned.
I don't understand what wording can be used here to avoid banning legitimate stuff and can't easily be worked around.
In the U.S., there was a recent Supreme Court decision [1] throwing out a law intended to ban crush porn, in which a woman crushes a small animal to death with her feet. They ruled that it was over-broad and could outlaw, for instance, hunting videos. A new law was passed immediately after the decision that had more specific language, and it has not, to my knowledge, been tested in court yet. Meanwhile, the court has upheld bans on child porn.
It seems to me that there is no need to ban possession of images depicting actions that are already illegal, but courts seem to think it's OK in the U.S.
So there is no difference between a murder and a manslaughter in your eyes?